| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 61437 | 2005-09-04 23:47:00 | Latest On MS Vista Hardware Requirements | vinref (6194) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 386146 | 2005-09-06 05:37:00 | As a Linux user, i'll happily take your old P4 of your hands, and i won't even charge cartage :D | personthingy (1670) | ||
| 386147 | 2005-09-06 06:41:00 | Vista is resource hungry primarily because m$ makes most of its money from windows being installed on new pcs, rather than people upgrading from XP That said, I strongly doubt that these "system requirements" will be anywhere near the actual system requirements needed for Vista. For one, the 2bg of ram stated in the first post is only for 64bit cpus "In a 32 bit environment, half a gig of RAM is heaps. It's going to fly. For 64 bit you're going to want 2 gigs of DDR3 RAM. "If you move from 32 to 64 bit, you basically need to at least double your memory. 2 gigs in 64 bit is the equivalent of a gig of RAM on a 32bit machine. That's because you're dealing with chunks that are twice the size… if you try to make do with what you've got you'll see less performance. But RAM is now so cheap, it's hardly an issue." Secondly the high perforamce graphics cards stated won't need to be as high if you change themes. For those that don't know, Vista includes translucent windows, which can be disabled to save performance (and are automatically disabled on crappier cards. Also bear in kind the classic 2000 style is still avaliable. |
imarubberducky (7230) | ||
| 386148 | 2005-09-06 07:23:00 | Correct me if I am wrong,but by 2007 the resource requirements will be common place,surely?So not an issue. | Cicero (40) | ||
| 386149 | 2005-09-06 07:55:00 | It's quite humerous. When windows XP was released, a 1ghz machine was the best you could get, and people gawked at the 128mb RAM requirements. As has been said, by the time you've got Vista released, people will be laughing at us. "Jaysus, how could you survive with 32bit, 3.2ghz processors :rolleyes:" | Edward (31) | ||
| 386150 | 2005-09-06 09:34:00 | True, they may be more likely than on todays new PC's, but that rules out people upgrading. We're going to have major troubles again with "This application works but this doesnt in Vista" again like when upgrading to WinXP. Software writers are going to have to get used to the better way of file-system permissions and not having Administrator RW access everywhere. I just hope the x64 version of it has made many inroads where the current XP lacks! How will it be abbreviated anyways? We've had NT, '95, '98, ME, 2K, XP... whats Vista going to be?! |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 386151 | 2005-09-06 12:22:00 | It's quite humerous. When windows XP was released, a 1ghz machine was the best you could get, and people gawked at the 128mb RAM requirements. As has been said, by the time you've got Vista released, people will be laughing at us. "Jaysus, how could you survive with 32bit, 3.2ghz processors :rolleyes:" Nowhere near as hilarious as those poor souls needing to upgrade constantly to keep pace with the bloat and malware, although they seem to get only as much use out of it as they ever did before. Are/should hardware requirements (be) dictated by the users needs or the softwares' needs? |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 386152 | 2005-09-06 20:12:00 | Those "poor souls" are just the same people who are hit every time MS releases a new version of Windows . LIke all the previous times people will either upgrade, buy new, or ignore the new version as they see fit . Its not a big issue . No one is making you change to vista . I just moved off win98 last week . You are not forced to do anything you don't want to . |
netchicken (4843) | ||
| 386153 | 2005-09-06 23:19:00 | True, nobody is forcing us to upgrade, but what happens when they stop supporting Windows XP shortly (6-year support life right?!), and the latest exploit comes out and there's no fix for it? They're going to pitch all they can to get people to upgrade, just like they're still trying to get everybody to got to XPSP2 |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 386154 | 2005-09-07 00:19:00 | True, nobody is forcing us to upgrade, but what happens when they stop supporting Windows XP shortly (6-year support life right?!), and the latest exploit comes out and there's no fix for it? I've never used their fixes yet. I prefer 3rd party security. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 386155 | 2005-09-07 02:32:00 | We're going to have major troubles again with "This application works but this doesnt in Vista" again like when upgrading to WinXP. Software writers are going to have to get used to the better way of file-system permissions and not having Administrator RW access everywhere.And it couldn't happen soon enough... I am *so* sick of having to tweak file, and reg permissions for some app that makes the stupid assumption that all users have admin access. -Qyiet |
qyiet (6730) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||